H-MIF Common Controller QA Final.pdf

Question/Clarification Government Response

Is there software already installed on the vehicles? a. Yes, there is autonomy software already installed on the robotic vehicles.

b. Yes there is a large software development effort for both the vehicles and the user interface

Does the Ground Control Station (GCS) need to support a particular protocol (e.g., RAS- G), or does the customer have a software GCS that we would run on our Android smartphone?

Yes, the controller will need to run the Warfighter Machine Interface, process the weapon station video and run RVMS software

Is the purpose of this RFI only to procure a rugged controller, or is software development desired as well?

To procure a rugged controller with the necessary hardware with a need to run the Warfighter Machine Interface, process the weapon station video and run RVMS software

Please confirm KDA SSCI refers to the Kongsberg

CISC.

This was a typo on the RFI document, the correct acronym is KDA CISC (Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace CPI Interworking Safety Client). CPI= Control Panel Interface

Please provide details and interface specifications on the VST.

VST = Vehicle Safety Transponder, It’s a safety certified government emergency stop.

Interfaces with the Robotic Vehicle Integration & Safety (RVIS), which is a platform management system

Please provide details and interface specifications on the RVMS.

RVMS = Remote Vehicle Monitoring System, GFE to be safety certified for robotic control.

Interface with the Robotic Vehicle Integration & Safety (RVIS) , which is a platform management system

There are a number of items that include question marks (LOS communication Range)

As instructed in the RFI, the Government requests that respondents provide recommended inputs/values for those items.

The RFI document references priority levels of functions. However it does not provide categorization of functions to priority levels.

The priority level functions are referenced on the RFI as written

The RFI document note force and actuation distances for controls, but notes: <Insert relevant values of the xxxx here> is there any further specification of these values.

As instructed in the RFI, the Government requests that respondents provide recommended inputs/values for those items.

The safety critical controls reference a table that is not included.

Government is requesting a table from Industry that specifies what modes the safety critical interface would function across modes

Please spell out acronym for KDA SSCI This was a typo on the RFI document, the correct acronym is KDA CISC (Kongsberg

Defense & Aerospace CPI Interworking Safety Client). CPI= Control Panel Interface 12 Please spell out acronym for VST VST = Vehicle Safety Transponder, It’s a safety certified government emergency stop

RVMS – assuming “Remote Video Monitoring System”, but please confirm.

RVMS = Remote Vehicle Monitoring System, GFE to be safety certified for robotic control

SINGCGARS – assuming “Single Channel Ground and Aerial System”, but please confirm.

Yes, Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS)

[REDACTED] has extensive experience working with other UAV/UGV's Programs by the US DoD, [REDACTED]. Would there be any interest in harmonicing existing standards and interfaces into our bid?

Respondents are encouraged to offer unique technical solutions which are likely to meet the statement requirements. This may be a combination of existing or new technology, but should be discussed in terms of how and whether it will actually meet the statement requirements in the RFI.

We are aware of most of the abbreviations in the document but we are not sure of the definition of VST and RVMS. Can you please elaborate?

VST = Vehicle Safety Transponder, It’s a safety certified government emergency stop.

RVMS = Remote Vehicle Monitoring System, GFE to be safety certified for robotic control

Is IP68 a hard requirement or could IP67 be acceptable (IP68 impacts ergonomics significant due to the size of IP68 switches etc)

IP68 a hard requirement

[REDACTED] Any company may provide a response to this RFI. Whether that response could be considered a viable solution would necessarily consider any pertinent security requirements.

It is incumbent on the Respondents to determine whether their solutions can comply with legal and security requirements, but RCCTO is not imposing any RCCTO specific foreign entity restrictions

Would it have any negative impact if [REDACTED] bids with other bidders as a subcontractor, while also bidding alone?

Companies are free to respond on their own, and separately, as part of a team, or as part of multiple teams in other responses

Would the bids be considered on similar terms if we are on multiple bids besides our own bid?

Yes, the bids would be considered on the terms specified in the announcement

Sheet1